The strawmen are certainly on fire today!

Your definition of ethics seems to be open to either utilitarian or eudaemonistic interpretations but precludes the Kantians. It you added the words "right and wrong" with regard to behaviour we would be approaching a broader conception of ethics. Then again, this would not sit well with your plug for situationist ethics which a priori precludes intrinsically evil acts such as torture (or as Aristotle would have it - adultery).

As regards the grounding for ethics, you will find that it is often found within religious traditions. The principles may be abstractable but I think it simplistic to believe that secular humanism is objective in a way that religous faith traditions fall short. Remember, not all Christians are fundamentalists and not all rationalists are rational.

If, as Glen Coulton seems to be saying, ethics is about miniminising
collective discomfiture, then the non-ethical nature of same-sex
"marriage" has already been decided on in a unanimity of the 31 American states
which have permitted citizen initiated referenda on the matter.
Minimum discomfiture,
maximum satisfaction:
an ethical solution.

I agree completely with the author, Glen Coulton.

And I'm normally resistant to ethics in schools because it boils down to "whose ethics?"- but he even defined that in a satisfying manner- mutually agreed concensus on maximum benefit/quality of life for all.

And, needless to say I agree with his point that religious preachers should be kept FAR away from being allowed to judge the criteria.
In fact, I would argue the course needs to be as 'democratic' and open as possible, with input to make people think about it, as opposed to let someone 'more qualified' decide for us.

The only downside is Schools are NOT open, inclusive environments where everybody's opinions are equal- or even matter- peer pressure and the hierarchies in school, along with the fear of getting marked down with the 'wrong answer' will prevent my idea from happening.

But still, generally agree.

Gordo Pollo: I don’t think I made a straw man error. I did not suggest that all, or even most religious teachings can be justified only by the belief that following them will get you a good place in heaven. I suggested that religions do prescribe certain beliefs/behaviours that are justified only by this argument. If it’s not true that religions rely on this kind of justification, then my argument is a straw man argument. But they do. Don’t they? You also seem to criticise me for not acknowledging that ethics can be often found within religious traditions. I wasn’t saying that it can’t. I was simply saying that to end up with ethical awareness, it is not necessary to start with religion belief, which is what the archbishops are arguing.

It is clear that Glen Coulton’s concept of ethics involves teaching
school children that homosexual behaviour is the ethical equivalent
of heterosexual behaviour. Like all same-sex advocates, he is being
disingenuous. To then claim scientific backing for his view borders
on bizarre. All right, let’s approach the subject of same-sex
behaviour scientifically. Are statistics a sufficiently scientific
basis for discussing the relative merits of homosex versus heterosex
Glen? How about the statistical fact that men who have sex with men
are 40+ times likely to acquire HIV/AIDs? How about the statistical
fact that domestic violence in same-sex households is a multiple of
that in heterosexually married households? What about the statistical
fact that people who engage in homosexual behaviour account for
around 2% of the population, and not the 10% figure used to bolster
their case. The Glen Coultons of the world aren’t interested in
science or facts where these contradict their agenda. To them, people
who use facts are haters. Homosexual advocates do their darndest to
obscure the facts. My viewpoint is not religiously based, however I
can imagine how the religious proscription may have originated. With
vastly inferior medical treatments available thousands of years ago
when these prohibitions were likely formulated, imagine the disease
resulting from any form of promiscuous behaviour, let alone that
which by necessity focuses on the anus. The disease risks haven't
been measurably reduced in the intervening millenia, merely society's
capacity to try to ameliorate them.

Glen Coulter, is it ethical to teach school children that homosexual
behaviour is the moral, ethical and health equivalent of heterosexual
behaviour when it is scientifically demonstrable that those engaging
in male homosexual behaviour are 40+ times as likely to contract
HIV/AIDs, not to mention suffering vastly higher rates of gonorrhoea,
syphilis, MRSA, etc?
Is it ethical to lie by omission?
Are you really genuine when you say these things should be discussed
openly in the school classrooms? I don't believe you are and I’m
hoping that your ilk are kept as far away as possible from my
children’s classrooms.
You represent a real threat to their welfare.

Whilst the nomenclature is doubtful in that perhaps the term 'ethics' in this context could best be understood as 'critiical thinking' as applied to behavioural norms, Glen Coulton has clearly deliniated the essential issue - which is the relative merits of a rationaly argued humanisitic ethic as compared with prescriptively dictated behaviour. Such a view will of course be fought tooth and nail by the various church apologists who, as well as protecting their places in heaven, see the on-going and readily observed failure of religiously bsed ethics as some sort of mandate to continue in the same vein - no doubt the 'Hitler and Stalin were atheists' argument will not be long in coming forward. For these people to see the unquestionable superiority of a naturalistic ethic does however requires two capacities as mentioned in the article - an open mind and an engaged brain - capacities that they do not normally possess.

Proxy,
I didn't appear to me that Glen Coulton was advocating teaching children that private promiscuous homosexual behavior was equivalent to normal heterosexual behaviour.
The point he appeared to me to be making was that quoting from a ancient rule book to make a homosexual practitioner feel inferior or guilty is stupid.
I am sure that no ethics discussion will be advocating that individual children adopt homosexual or promiscuous behaviour.
If you watched the SBS programme on the Ethics Trial you would have seen a "volunteer teacher" of SRI who sounded American and whose views were appalling.
You would also have seen children who were enjoying the opportunity to discus opened ended questions and make up or change their minds as they heard the views of their peers on particular questions.
Students in philosophical discussion classes have an opportunity to improve their ability to think, to improve their IQ results, to minimise bullying in their environment and generally improve their lives and the lives of their future partners and offspring.
That prospect seems to frighten the religious heirarchy.

A sound and sensible article from Glen Coulton. Predictably some posted comments have revealed that some readers have simply missed the main point of the article, namely that the various religions do not and should not have a monopoly on what consitutes acceptable ethical behaviour. There is also a major misapprehension by some that the recent trial of secular ethics classes in ten selected public schools in NSW is about "teaching ethics". It's not. The trial is simply an exercise in critical thinking about such issues as fairness, lying, graffiti, use and abuse of animals, children's rights and what constitutes the good life. The specially selected and trained teachers are NOT teaching "someone else's ethics". They are simply inviting individual children to express their thoughts and opinions on certain issues and then encouraging other children in the group to either agree or disagree. It is obvious, e.g., from the recent SBS Insight program, that the children are enjoying these sessions. Clearly the religious leaders are concerned about this, as they fear a mass exodus from scripture classes to the secular ethics discussions. As Glen Coulton notes, the various religions seem to think that the domain of ethics and ethical behaviour is exclusively theirs, and that there are ABSOLUTE standards of ethical behaviour, as set out in the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran. Many people (including myself) disagree strongly with this viewpoint. Indeed, people are deserting the churches these days because of the archaic views of the clerics, e.g., that homosexuality is abhorrent, that women are inferior, that abortion and voluntary euthanasia are "sinful" and so on. For me, the so-called Golden Rule says it all in one sentence. And these secular ethics classes area breath of fresh air. But watch out for the religious leaders who are itching the scuttle the entire experiment!

phenologist

Perfectly summarised.

It is only fear of losing more devotees that provides the impetus for objection to critical thinking, similar fears drive the objection to various scientific discoveries where such knowledge conflicts with religious text.

The inability of religion to be a dynamic system like science is the major reason for not foisting religious dogma on children. When children become adults they can choose whether or not to believe in the supernatural. Until then, children need to learn how to learn - not stagnate.

The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says the following: "The ‘straw man fallacy’ is committed when one arguer misrepresents another’s position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it."

I strongly doubt that you would get a thumbs up from "the Clerics" for the way their arguments have been presented here. A robust discussion involves making the best case for the opposition (writers like Martha Nussbaum do a sterling job).

The split between faith and reason has been cast in Enlightenment terms, with the corresponding oversight of the incarnate nature of human rationality. Religion, language, history, tradition and culture matter. Can you really think that "the Clerics" should not be "allowed within a bull’s roar" of the courses? Although ethics has its own domain and methododology, reason without faith misses out on rich fields of investigation. Think for a moment about the notion of 'person' and its origins.

Proxy, I think you are going over the top. Such polemic convinces nobody. The same goes for commenters who dismiss religious believers as closed minded crackpots. Such Dawkins'-like obtuseness is exceedingly tiresome and a clear sign of narrow mindedness in itself. Please allow for a minimum of rationality in people with whom you disagree.

Proxy
If, as you say, my article made it clear that my “concept of ethics involves teaching school children that homosexual behaviour is the ethical equivalent of heterosexual behavior”, then I would apologise for my appallingly careless drafting for that is nothing like what I meant. I’d go so far to suggest it is not even anything like what I said. I will plead guilty to being so careless with my drafting as to allow a really determined mis-reader to misread at will. To clarify: what I was suggesting is that all human actions, even such sensitive ones as same sex coupling, should be judged according to whether they increased or decreased the total amount of human discomfort experienced by people, not according to some proscription that might or might not have been intended by some anonymous statement in a very ancient book written without the benefit of modern knowledge. If you can demonstrate that a given act of same sex coupling reduces the total level of human comfort in the world, then I would say it is unethical to engage in it. If not, then I would say it is up to the couple themselves to decide. I’m not competent to judge whether your demonstration has succeeded.
As for my own sexual orientation, did you not understand my disclaimer? Again my drafting skills appear to have failed me so let me try again. I’m 100% with the 85 year old Cornishman who, when asked why at such an age he was migrating to Australia, replied that he had watched in dismay as Britain made homosexual acts legal and he was getting out before they made them compulsory!

GlenC,
You thrice referred to same-sex activities in an article about
teaching non-religious based ethics to school children.
It seems reasonable to infer from this that you advocate teaching
children about homosexuality cleansed of the religious viewpoint.
You say "religion is to ethics as pseudoscience is to science".
I say homosexual advocacy "is to ethics as pseudoscience is to science".
Homosexuality education blatantly and deliberately ignores the science.
It goes even further, by making up the science to further an agenda.

My son had his Scripture teacher tell him that Christians invented schools and hospitals, so lying apparently is within the boundaries of ethical behaviour for Christians.

The author says:

"Religion, especially Christianity, is not essential to the teaching and development of a sound ethical sense."

Why SPECially Christianity?
What is 'sound' ?

The only problem with separating ethics from religion is the outcome would be rather morally ubiquitous.

Not only would ethicist like sodomy taught without health risks but one of their 'champion' high priest Singer also thinks bestiality and paedophille is fine. No wonder suicide, drug taking and perversion is on the increase with the acceptance of secular values. We are reaping what we are sowing by giving these 'ethicist' the time of day. Keep them from my children and grandchildren. Its no wonder private schools are bursting at the seam while only Public schools taking on biblical values seems to be flourishing.

Runner, have you bothered to read anything about the advantages flowing from philosophical discussion of open ended questions by young students?

And, have you read anything by Peter Singer?. I cannot recall reading that he advocates bestiality or other destructive behaviour you suggest.

I have read some of his work and have his book "How are we to live." In it his conclusions are admirable. The final section states;

“Anyone can become part of the critical mass that offers us a chance to improve the world… and take up new causes and find your goals changing.” He completed his book by stating, “You will not be bored, or lack fulfilment in your life. Most of important of all, you will know that you have not lived and died for nothing, because you will have become part of the great tradition of those who have responded to the amount of pain and suffering in the universe by trying to make the world a better place.”

Some of us are trying to do our bit by supporting the elimination of the indoctrination of children and supporting the efforts to have children learn to think early.

Gordo Pollo- not really. Following Glens defining criteria of ethics, if a religious person proposed an ethic that corresponded to the criteria of to ensure maximum benefit, it would be ACCEPTED.
If he were to say, propose an ethic does not stand to any ethical criteria save for religious doctrines (abortion, euthanasia, anti-gay) then it would be rejected as naught but sectarian prejudice.

AGIR- to answer your question of why only Christianity- simple, as far as Australia is concerned, fundamentalist Christian and secular ethics (Christian and non) are the only two substantial viewpoints here. There are so few Shariah-advocates they aren't even worth including either which way (and good, I say).

The bottom line is, if a policy does not actually ensure the betterment of most people and establish a fair system of justice as agreed by the people subject to it, is it really an ethic?

As regards Peter Singer's views on bestiality you can read his work "Heavy Petting" or just check him out on QANDA.

Once again, I would like to reiterate my concerns about the supposedly neutral point of view taken by practitioners of the Enlightnment project. When it comes to sectarian prejudice there are none so blind as those who will not see. Please brush up on your Gadamer and look a little to the pre-judgements about religion, values and the nature of the human person that you are taking into this debate. They are culturally conditioned. We are all striving for fairness and universal rationality but we are each doing so from within a particular tradition.

One particular point of view that seems to be recurring here is the utilitarian one. Striving for 'the maximum good' is not uncontroversial. There are other contending notions of ethics, not least the deontological ones as encapsulated in the United Nations Declaration of Universal Rights 1948.

Except that some ethics do NOT stand up as actually helping anyone, just castigating people for being something that doesn't actually hurt anyone, but simply contradicts a religious doctrine.

That is why we require that ethics conveyed in schools are secular (that is, they actually stand outside a religious context)- because it is much harder for similar ethics to come into play.

Hence why the point stands, and why Proxy proves it correct (that teaching anything less than homosexuality being immoral and dangerous is akin to promoting it).

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT.... fixing the Author Glen Coulton...

1/ Identify the PROBLEM. "Not performing rationally or honestly" (possibly due to ignorance"

According to Glen "Religion is about:

:: how people should behave so as to secure the greatest possible well being for themselves in the next life ::

Evaluation="MISINFORMATION."

2/ Identify the SOLUTION.

Read owners manual...... (Mark 12:30ff)

a) "The first great commandment is love the Lord your God with all your heart"
b) "Love your neighbour as yourself"

Does anyone beside me see that the 'religious' (Christian) approach to human life is EQually distributed between the divine hereafter and the human here and now ?

If we applied just b) alone.. this would be all the *ethics* we would ever need. But unnnnfortunately.. we are evil, fallen, selfish and greedy. Hence the need for a) also.

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT COMPLETE.
-Misinformation corrected.
-Product returned to customer.

Ethics teaching kids to think for themselves and make up their own minds versus religious dogma, authoritative, not to be questioned and requiring unthinking obedience, under threat of eternal punishment.

The answer is obvious for anybody who values intelligence, freedom and logic

King Hazza,
<<There are so few Shariah-advocates they aren't even worth including
either which way (and good, I say).>>
So if there were "Shariah-advocates" trying to indoctrinate school
children on an Australia-wide basis you would be concerned?
Then sign the petition:
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3556:petition-agaist-lfoa&catid=276:fedaral-parliament

Boazy: << we are evil, fallen, selfish and greedy >>

Speak for yourself. That sort of crap is exactly why we need to rid our oublic schools of religious education.

Correct Proxy I am against bringing Islamic perspectives into schools completely- as any such perspectives that don't correspond to secular perspectives are either those that a student can simply adhere to personally without needing to bother anyone else- or something that simply has no right to be applied to secular schooling (or society).

As it is, they (anti-secular Muslims who would advocate Shariah) are a minuscule minority (easily counted in the hundreds, possibly a thousand), and simply no threat as far as lobbying and pandering could ever go (and vote wise, any politician knows that to agree to (Shariah) demands is to immediately lose your vote from probably at least 20 million voters. Such people have no government positions (unlike the UK- and their undemocratic House of Lords), and simply would stand no chance of successfully lobbying such demands.

I'm sorry to labour the point but both the article and the comments appear to be much too Manichean in their dualism of 'secular good' and 'religion bad'. Faith presupposes a lot of questioning. In practice those who take their faith seriously ask lots and lots of questions. Secular humanists may be just as serious in their questioning, or equally just as frivolous as a nominal believer. At any rate, 60% of Australians identify with the Christian religion and I suspect that many of the 30% who identify with secular humanism would actually hold environmental/spiritual beliefs of some transcendence. Even though I think that the article is too casually dismissive of "the Clerics'" arguments and religious traditions, Glen has certainly touched on an important point of contention regarding a 'this world' immanence to ethical considerations as opposed to an expectation of the 'other world' regarding a transcendent future for the human person. Perhaps we could argue about this point in futher depth?

PROXY, You said that I, “… thrice referred to same-sex activities in an article about teaching non-religious based ethics to school children. It seems reasonable to infer from this that you advocate teaching children about homosexuality ….” If I had thrice referred to anti-semitism in an article about racism, would you infer from this that I advocated Jew hating?

I definitely do not advocate homosexuality; I just can't see any good evidence that what consenting homosexuals do in private diminishes anyone's well being, and so do not think I have a compelling justification for opposing it. Show me that evidence and I'll change my position.

ALGOREisRICH, I specifically mentioned Christianity because it is the religion orchestrating the vicious and dishonest attack on the trial ethics program in NSW public schools. I think that no religious beliefs — Christian or other — should be used as a basis for determining what constitutes ethical behavior among humans. This proscription should apply in particular to any religion that teaches that the way humans behave in this life will determine the existence they experience for eternity starting with their death.

I am in awe of your pro-forma CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT. In whose owner’s manual did you find it? Do you seriously think that “love they neighbor” was neither known about nor practised until well after the death of Christ when some authors tried to reconstruct an account of his life from the Chinese whispers that survived the intervening decades?

You questioned my statement that religion is about how people should behave so as to secure the greatest possible well being for themselves in the next life. Here are a couple of facts: on every single day of the twelve years I attended a religious school, it was drummed into me that how I behaved would determine how I spent eternity. And while the number of sermons I’ve had to sit through in the last fifty years is (thankfully) low, in every single one of them the preacher made the same point. Should you be so confident about who is misinforming whom here?

'Boazy: << we are evil, fallen, selfish and greedy >>

Speak for yourself.'

Oh sure CJ you are the model we all want to follow!

Foyle you ask

'Runner, have you bothered to read anything about the advantages flowing from philosophical discussion of open ended questions by young students?'

People who reject absolutes love sliming around in the pit of perversion and degradation whether it be in speech or action. I would prefer healthy discussions based on fact rather than whether bestiality is right or wrong as the likes of Singer love to dwell on in the name of 'philosophical discussion'. This kind of 'discussion' has led to enough young people committing suicide as they listen to god deniers sprout their dogmas of us coming from slime. No wonder so many of these ethicist are so slimy.

Runner <" This kind of 'discussion' has led to enough young people committing suicide as they listen to god deniers sprout their dogmas of us coming from slime."

Runner, where do you get these ideas from? Are you suggesting that young people commit suicide because of what atheists say to them?
How many ethicists do you actually know?

What we do know, is that many young people have committed suicide after being told by religious people that their feelings of homosexuality are an evil sin.
We also know of many who have committed suicide after a lifetime of mental anguish, after being sexually abused by Priests as children.

I believe that we can do without the religious 'teachings' in the education system and just teach children right from wrong.
Just like parents and teachers were doing long before Jesus apparently 'taught' his followers the same messages.

LOL! Good, one Proxy! Homosexuals spreading MRSA, I've not laughed so hard in many a moon. Before you are tempted in future to flash about acronyms you don't understand, I think it would be fair of me to point out what MRSA actually stands for: Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus.

It's golden staph, with a resistance to antibiotics. It is not a sexually transmitted disease, and has never been regarded as one. Your attempts at scaremongering smack of desperation and homophobia. Perhaps next time you might like to learn the science before you shove your foot in your mouth?

“Ethics should not be offered as an alternative to the Bible” - Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen.

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
- Jesus (Luke 14:26)

"I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, ‘Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won’t need to strike again.’ But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn... So now the LORD says: “Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy."
- Gawd (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)

“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.“
- Jesus (John 15:6 KJV)

“You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword,” says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert... now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist."
Gawd – (Zephaniah 2:12-15 NLT)

So it shall be at the end of the world; the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be a wailing and gnashing of teeth.
- Jesus (Matthew 13:49-50)

To All,
Do you want to live under the curse or do you want to live under the blessing which is not a religious choice but an individual choice.
God has provided for the wrath of God ( curse ) on the cross at Calvary.
The price is paid in full. If we choose to accept we are no longer under the curse but live under the blessing. The only way we do not appropiate all the blessing is through lack of knowledge, for we have not for we ask not or we ask amiss. The curse is the consequence of rejection of Gods word or adding to or subtracting from it. The human understanding of the world and its origin is still incomplete with many unanswered questions and to say it is complete is pride. Which is the reason for the fall under the curse. Pride stops you from acknowledging God First and giving Him ALL the Glory. Would you give
your only beloved son for a rotten sinner like me. God did and that is an indisputable historic fact But you have freewill to accept or reject that.
Regards Richie 10

The usual narrow cannards are trotted out as bare assertions, red-herrings, false dichotomies - issues around homosexuality (same sex marriage; HIV/AIDs; sodomy; bestiality; etc), or another religion (Islam), etc

""reason without faith misses out on rich fields of investigation" (Gordo Pollo, Friday, 2 July 2010 4:52:38 PM). How, Gordo? Can you provide an effective argument to support this?

""I would prefer healthy discussions based on fact rather than whether bestiality is right or wrong"" (runner, Sunday, 4 July 2010 12:03:32 AM)

How about the facts of whether there is evidence for the claims of relgious texts. How about the fact the claims of the Bible are not mirrored in contemporary non-Biblical documents from the 40 or so recognised historians of the time??

"" '[philosophical] discussion' has led to enough young people committing suicide as they listen to god deniers sprout their dogmas of us coming from slime."" (runner, Sunday, 4 July 2010 12:03:32 AM) = Emotive, irrational, and unfounded.

Religions' efforts to self-perpetuate, self-promote, and self-regulate (as seen with priest abuse scandals), are unethical, as are their efforts to regulate other dimensions of modern societies.

Riz,
According to the New York Times, homosexual males are 6.5 times as
likely to be infected with Community-Associated(CA)-MRSA as non-homosexuals.

Maybe you're thinking about Healthcare-Associated(HA)-MRSA?

"A new, highly drug-resistant strain of the “flesh-eating” MRSA bacteria is being spread among gay men in San Francisco and Boston, researchers reported on Monday.
In a study published online by the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, the bacteria seemed to be spread most easily through anal intercourse but also through casual skin-to-skin contact and touching contaminated surfaces.
The authors warned that unless microbiology laboratories were able to identify the strain and doctors prescribed the proper antibiotic therapy, the infection could soon spread among other groups and become a wider threat.
The new strain seems to have “spread rapidly” in gay populations in San Francisco and Boston, the researchers wrote, and “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” among gay men.
The study was based on a review of medical records from outpatient clinics in San Francisco and Boston and nine medical centers in San Francisco.
The Castro district in San Francisco has the highest number of gay residents in the country, according to the University of California, San Francisco. One in 588 residents is infected with the new multidrug-resistant MRSA strain, the study found. That compares with 1 in 3,800 people in San Francisco, according to statistical analyses based on ZIP codes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html

Riz,
As you can see from the above report from the New York Times,
it's not me "shoving my foot in my mouth" that's the problem.

CA-MRSA is spread by men shoving their organs where they don't belong.
(Annals of Internal Medicine..."the bacteria seemed to be spread most easily through anal intercourse")

Maybe your own foot fell in your mouth when you were laughing so hard at me.

Given that Proxy claims not be religious, I wonder what is the basis for his extreme homophobia - and indeed, for his extreme antipathy to Islam but not to Christianity?

Am I the only one getting a bit disturbed by runner's ongoing obsession with animal sex?

PROXY, While I (hope I) don’t share what CJ Morgan calls your extreme homophobia, I too experience an unpleasant sensation at the thought of what you call, “men shoving their organs where they don't belong.” I feel a similar sensation at the thought of amputations, organ transplants, rectal examinations and even knee replacements and cataract removals which, barring unpleasant surprises, are the next cabs off my rank. But I don’t think that my squeamishness constitutes an argument that these procedures are immoral; hence my comment that I can live with homosexual practices being made legal/moral as long as they’re not made compulsory. You sound as if you can’t which suggests that CJ Morgan’s question is deserving of your answer.

If, in your answer, you were able to show that homosexual acts per se decreased the net well being of all human beings (seemingly unlikely but not logically impossible), those who share my views would have to reassess them.

Perhaps, too, it’s time to recall that my paper was not directly, or even mainly, about sexual ethics but about the broader question of why religions should be granted any right to interfere in the teaching of ethics, let alone be allowed to own the game.

RUNNER, are you real?

Dear Glen

thanx for responding.

Proxy... in good form :)

CJ.. I see it in you every day..and am also guilty of it. I speak for you and I and all.

Back to Glen

I'm most interested in the 'vicious and dishonest attack' you refer to.. care to elaborate with some links please?

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21467

Pell says the ethics classes show a hostility to religion ... not exactly vicious :) but by all means read some of Pericles and CJ Morgans anti Christian posts and you will certainly find 'vicious' :)
Though Pericles tends to be more articulate.

Glen..I'd be interested in a serious answer to a serious question.

"Basis for Ethics" is it your contention that the "maximum good for the maximum number" be the foundation ?

If so.. how would you define 'good' ?

Thanx.. you are in the Lions den now mate :)

OH MY.. just saw this wooopeee...
"not all Christians are fundamentalists and not all rationalists are rational."(Gordo Pollo)

Pericles... meet Gordo :)

and last but not least.. here comes....*FIRESNAKE*..... welcome :)

with.... LUKE 14:26 "if a man does not HATE mum and dad....etc"

Firey..I'm sending you off to 6 months of Hard Hermeneutic labor at our (Gulag) Bible College of Victoria.

I think it might take that long to fix you :)

"" .... about the broader question of why religions should be granted any right to interfere in the teaching of ethics, let alone be allowed to own the game."" (GlenC, Sunday, 4 July 2010 12:32:53 PM

The issues you address before that key point addresses that point - they can't get past the issues of sexuality, and can't even address sexuality ethically, let alone address the wider issues of ethics in total. The narrowness of the arguments around homosexuality in the comments in this blog, an example being the narrow focus on MRSA, is typical of the obsessiveness and closed-mindedness of the religious.

Richie10 - so-called "Free Will" is not portrayed as you portray it.

The notion of God is long-standing in human history, yet it is not fact, hence is disputed and disputable.

GlenC,
You say that male-to-male anal sex makes you squeamish,
but then again, so do:
amputations,
organ transplants,
rectal examinations,
knee replacements,
cataract removal.
They’re not illegal or immoral, so you can see no reason why
homosexuality shouldn’t be legal or moral.
What sort of analogy is this?
What is the basis of your argument?
The only connection I can see is your squeamishness.
I personally don’t care what homosexuals do to each other.
Furthermore, homosexuality is not illegal.
What I object to is kids being indoctrinated that homosexuality is
normal and natural, when it is manifestly, obviously not.
The only argument supporting the notion that homosexuality is normal
and natural, is that people engage in it.
Well, people engage in lots of behviours,
But not many of them result in the diseases that accompany homosex.
To teach children that homosexuality is normal and natural, without
the countervailing warning that it also manifoldly increases the
practitioners exposure to HIV/AIDs, gonorrhoea, syphilis, CA-MRSA,
anal cancer, etc, etc, etc, IS immoral.
But of course, if we did this we would be "discriminating on the basis of their sexuality".
Better to pretend it's not happening and let a few kids die while
they're young and experimenting sexually.
To pretend that homosexual "marriage" is just the same as normal
marriage and to condemn as bigots those who disagree, is just a sick
strategy used by people who have no argument.
You think about GlenC.
No-one will even engage the disease-based arguments against
homosexual behaviour but then they pretend that theirs is a
scientific, ethical and rational stance.
Prove it by engaging in actual debate.

Proxy
Sorry; have to dash off on grandfather duty. But quickly, as I said, if there is good evidence that homosexual activity poses a net threat threat to the world at large, then I would have to rethink my tolerance of it. I'm not sure you have demonstrated that it harms people who do not engage in it. Even so, don't forget that homosexuality is but a side issue to what prompted my article, which was about concern that religions were trying to claim ownership of all ethical judgments and therefore sole authority to make them. I could live to regret responding quickly!

Proxy, you just won't let this go will you?
Homosexuality is NOT LEARNED.
It can't be encouraged by teachers or other gay people.
If you are born straight, you are straight.
If you are born homosexual, you are homosexual, even if you choose not to have sex with people of your own gender.

Check out this website Proxy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

"While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.'

"...virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity."

Were the homosexual animals or insects taught about how to be homosexual, or that it was not 'natural' Proxy?
No of course they weren't, and yet there they are, just like gay humans. They are born that way.

Most religious classes would not agree with the science about this fact, so they would be telling any gay students in their classes that it is a sin, an abomination, and a terribly unnatural way to be.

That would be soul-destroying and awfully upsetting to these students who were born as homosexuals. Many commit suicide because of the stigma and the way many people do not accept them.

Dear McReal,
I would love to know what picture you see on freewill. I happen to believe that everybody, Christians included have the right to choose whose ideas they believe. I know, not all ideas are good. But I support your God given right of freewill to chose but I resent you trying to take my God given right of choice away and imposing your choice or will on my children.God is not the problem, man is. Lord your will be done in my life as it is in heaven.

Boaz: << CJ.. I see it in you every day..and am also guilty of it. I speak for you and I and all >>

You don't speak for me, old chap. I find your assertion that you do offensive in the extreme.

Don't presume to do it again. If you did so to my face I'd probably drop you.

You may well be "evil, fallen, selfish and greedy", but that doesn't give you the right to project your personal flaws on to others. And any RE teacher who does so to innocent kids is guilty of child abuse, as far as I'm concerned.

mikk: << Am I the only one getting a bit disturbed by runner's ongoing obsession with animal sex? >>

It's more than a bit like Proxy's obsession with anal sex. A bit too much protestation, perhaps?

<<Given that Proxy claims not be religious, I wonder what is the basis...
for his extreme antipathy to Islam but not to Christianity?>>
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 4 July 2010 11:26:52 AM

CJ Morgan,
My "antipathy to Islam but not to Christianity" is based on logic, not bigotry.
Please note that I also have no antipathy toward Scientology, Taoism,
Shintoism, Buddhism, Wicca, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, etc

Allow me to introduce you to Wafa Sultan.
Like myself, Wafa Sultan is neither a Christian nor a Muslim, yet,
unlike yourself, she has "extreme antipathy to Islam but not to Christianity"
Unlike her, my mother is not a Muslim and I'm not a practising
psychiatrist or a Syrian Muslim by birth.
This last week, she appeared as an expert witness in the secret
(closed to the public) hate crimes trial of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.
She fully endorses his stand on Islam and so do I and so do the
citizens of the Netherlands who voted to increase his party's
parliamentary representation from 9 to 22 seats in the June elections.
She has experienced Islam first hand as a woman living under Islam
for the first 30 years of her life.
Her experiences gels with my understanding of Islam, based on my readings.
She sums up the situation far better than I could.
So if you really want to know how someone can differentiate between
two religions you can listen to what she has to say about them.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/wafa-sultan-defends-geert-wilders.html

Now, now Proxy. Just because you want to avoid discussing your rather obvious obsession with homosexuality and anal sex is no excuse for a shameless diversion into your other trolling obsession.

Stick your Islamophobia under your rock for now - let's explore this extreme homophobia of yours. If it's not based on religious bigotry, why are you so obsessed with it?

'mikk: << Am I the only one getting a bit disturbed by runner's ongoing obsession with animal sex? >>'

I would be more worried about your high priests endorsement of it.

""reason without faith misses out on rich fields of investigation" (Gordo Pollo, Friday, 2 July 2010 4:52:38 PM). How, Gordo? Can you provide an effective argument to support this?

As you will have noticed I spoke about the origin of our notion of a person. I'll leave it to you McReal to do some research - I would be fascinated to see what you come up with.

As regards other fields of investigation we could look at a concept like creation ex nihilo. This led to the possibility of such amazing works as De Ente et Essentia (amazing for metaphysicians anyway).

@ Glen. Ethics concerns rightness and wrongness - how we get somewhere is important, it's not just the getting there that counts. Why? Fundamentally because it concerns who we become through our actions as moral agents.

@ McReal. Ethics is much, much broader than sexual ethics. Only 2 of the 10 Commandments touch on sex and only 20 of some 1,000 pages of the Catholic Catechism deal with that subject (and those that do are generally very positive since it is regarded to be a gift from God and a means of sanctification (according to a meaning inscribed in our bodies by God - yes you can argue with that one all you like but I merely refer to how Catholics approach this important subject).

@ Suzieonline. Please explain the connection between molesting priests and how that precludes religion informing ethical debate? Or do you simply mean to say that some contributors to the discussion might be rank hypocrites?

Richie 10, "Free will" is denied by some Christian branches or denominations, particularly those who follow the so-called Reformers, Luther and Calvin. They determined that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life i.e. predestined/predestination.

Others describe "free will" as a combination of chance and determination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Free_will_as_a_combination_of_chance_and_determination

John Locke denied that the phrase "free will" made any sense. Similarly, David Hume discussed the possibility that the entire debate about free will is nothing more than a merely "verbal" issue. These views may be tied to and give credence to "theological_noncognitivism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

Gordo Pollo - I agree that "Ethics is much, much broader than sexual ethics", yet sexual ethics is a subset, of course, that still requires refining in some circles.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1maMhmutTzw/R6t63tglWLI/AAAAAAAAAGg/xDdPJrhe1ow/s1600/normal_science_vs_faith.jpg

Oh dear! The god brothers have dropped the ball once again. Religion for man-kinds development has served its perilous journey and nothing more can be squeezed out of it than it already has. Now its just a recruitment drive to support its own means. CJ.lol watch out bloke! Polly wants a cracker has a black-belt in origami. Arr.....runner! The joy I get for reading what ever it is you mean. ( I have not stopped laughing since this post began )

There are two types of humans in this story.

1. Is the adult child.
And 2. IS THE ADULT.

I wonder who is who in the human zoo? lol.

Evolution show us that extinction does happen in the same species and religion just happens to be one of life's casualties as more modern humans takes its play one more step forward as its always done.

Public schools need ethics, not religious education.

And how true.

Say NO to brain-washing!

TTM.

Dear McReal,
If you have followed any of my posts you would know that I believe in and follow Jesus, who came to save our soul and set the captive free, and it was the religious people of his day who demanded that Pilate kill him because he claimed to be the son of God. The Definition I have learned of soul is mind, will, and emotions. You do not have to look far to see the result of the curse as sickness and poverty are part of the curse. The only answer to take the curse of your life is to believe in the revealed Word of God, Jesus the Christ, born of a virgin, born in Bethlehem, a prophet like Moses, rejected by his own people, the Jews, betrayed by one of his followers for money, was tried and condemned, was silent before his accusers, struck and spat on by his enemies, was mocked and insulted, died by crucifixion, suffered with criminals whom he prayed for, was given vinegar and gall, others cast lots for his clothes, no bones where broken, died as a sacrifice for sin (an archery term meaning 'to miss the mark'), rose from the dead, and is now at Gods right hand. All prophesied in the old testament and fulfilled in the new testament. Paul of Tarsus said to 'be perfect' as Christ is perfect. This used to bother me until I received the understanding that he was talking about maturity not the human understanding of perfection. Jesus said unless God builds us we labor in vain. So if God is working in us to will and to do his good pleasure, stop striving to be good and pray "your will be done in my life as it is in heaven" as Jesus taught his disciples in what we now call the Lords prayer.
Regards Richie 10

Richie10, as you quoted, the Lords Prayer refers to the Father's will, although a lot of the older versions do not refer to "in my life" as you do, which seems to reflect a personalisation that seems to be current Christian focus

" ... thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven ..."
. ...... or ..
"... your will be done, on earth as in heaven ... "

A key issue is the various views on concepts such as "free will" that makes uniform teaching in a school setting difficult and fraught, hence it virtually makes universal teaching to those of different denominations unethical.

Regards, and best wishes.

Dear McReal,
Unless you live christianity (personal) it is only religious obligation(tradition of men) which is powerless to change and transform lives . Christians are not perfect just forgiven and reconected to the Kingdom of God and all the blessings. Prosperity in mind, body, and spirit and you have to experience it to understand.

@ Richie10 - I appreciate the benefits of religion such as Christianity to many who apply it purposefully, yet - sorry, don't follow your first sentence.

Dear CJ

woooo.. waxing violent ? :)

"Don't presume to do it again. If you did so to my face I'd probably drop you."

Why would I try to speak 'for' you if you are there in front of me? tat would be dumb.

Ok.. looking out from under my ecclesiastical rock where I cringe in fear of your impending physical assault... let me timidly rephrase my statement..

"I see it in you every day.. so I speak ABOUT you"... happy now ?

CJ.. I'd say everything I've said here to your face.. it surprises me that you take such issue with such a thing.. I was not aware that you are sinless? Thanx for the update though...

...and unless ur prepared to step into a 4 cornered ring with me for a friendly spar.. it's better to avoid threats of violence.

Golly.. can you even imagine that ?:) CJ and AL...going at it.. interspersed with "you loathsome cretin, swing swing...you you..." from CJ and me smiling like a Cheshire cat... too much CJ.. too much.

I dance like a butterfly.. but only sting like a blunt mozzie :)

Richie 10
You do not own your children, you borrow them from their future and you have an obligation to open their minds to clear thinking. If you allow them to be indoctrinated you are abusing their potential.
Runner,
Today I listened again to Singer on Q&A. Some time ago he did a book review and some questions on bestiality were dealt with. On Q&A he condemned the cruelty often inflicted on animals in bestiality but gave an example where a human was the passive participant. In that situation he could see no reason to seek to punish the human participant or any benefit from trying to make the human participant feel guilt.
That does not give you the evidence or the right to claim that Singer supports bestiality.

Gordo Pollo <" Suzieonline. Please explain the connection between molesting priests and how that precludes religion informing ethical debate? Or do you simply mean to say that some contributors to the discussion might be rank hypocrites?"

I was merely attempting to answer Runner's post Gordo. I would suggest that the Priests and Nuns who were involved in the education of many Australian children in Catholic schools in the past (me included)are very much a part of this debate.
Why not?

Are you suggesting we should preclude these religious people from having ever taught their brand of ethics at schools?

I am merely suggesting we should leave religious 'teachings' out of as many schools as possible.
It has caused more trouble than help in the past.

Dear McReal,
Christianity is God initiated. It is caught not taught. You can go to church but that does not make you a christian. Living in a chook house does not make you a chook. You must be recreated or born from above. You Get your name from your father. Without the rebirth the old nature still rules. The Revealed name God gave in the New Testament is Jesus the Christ and the bible is very clear that if the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead doesn't live in you, you are not a christian at all. Then it becomes a life long relationship with your heavenly father. So religious beliefs do not change the nature of man. Only the rebirth initiated from God changes the heart of of man. Impossible for man, possible with God. Then the education begins.

Dear Foyle,
Children are our heritage from the Lord and it is our responsibility to train them in the way of the Lord for the way you train them they will go and when they are old they will never depart from it, for humility and fear of the Lord brings honour and wealth and life. Only an fool would believe that his wife and children are his property. The definition of a fool is one who says in his heart there is no God Ps 53-1. The social gospel is as useless as tits on a bull as it has no power. Whether you chose to brain wash your children with the traditions of men or the word of God be very clear they lead to different destinations as only the word of God has the power to save.
The word of God is very clear where guilt and condemnation comes from and it is not from God. Never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for it leads to death where guilt and condemnation are found. All children are indoctrinated whether with the proactive or the reactive. By their fruit you shall know them. The fruit of God are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control against which there is no laws. The reactive fruit are sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, drunkenness, orgies and the like. All which destroy and lead to death. So don't get all coy and pretend that what you promote is TRUTH.

Richie 10
In your last to post you have revealed much about yourself which does you little credit.

I challenge you to read the books of the Bible covering the Moses and Joshua eras over a few days. If you understand the contents you could only conclude that either they took their instruction from a S*it or that they were politicians who made it up as they went along to suit their political and territorial aims. I go for the latter. I accept that if he existed Jesus himself was generally a good guy but the gospels are a confused clutch of selected documents written well after the events they claim to describe and therefore inaccurate.

Both Ronald Reagan and George W Bush claimed to be guided in their political decisions by their God. Reagan was lucky with short term history going his way but George W ? America is now paying the price of the stupidity of both of them.

Your claims about the moral and ethical behaviour of convinced secularist or atheists is way off line. I associate with a few of them and the ones I know put most Christians to shame in their personal attributes and their attitude to this life and to the future of society. Firstly, they think for themselves. They tend not to be influenced by writers from the past;writers who were satisfied that the earth had four corners and that it was impossible for a human to go to the depths of the ocean.

I do not know how you relate the known age of the earth at 4.5 billion years to that of the universe at 13.7 billion but I accept that we would not be here if there had not been a supernova explosion of a previous star (sun). How did a God do that or how does acceptance of a God add to the explanation that is now accepted by most scientists who are familiar with that subject?

@ Richie 10: You make it clear that people who do not follow the teachings of Christ have no hope of amounting to anything in this life or the next. Given that there have been countless trillions of sentient humans on Earth (and who knows how many zillions on other objects in the universe), where are they now? They couldn't possibly be in Heaven, not having had the benefit of Jesus' sin-cancelling sacrifice.

Further, given that human beings have been evolving for millions of years and that they certainly evolved from a life form that you would not regard as having a soul, can you describe for us the situation that obtained when the last "human" to have not had a soul gave birth to the first human that did. It sounds like a fascinating point in our history. Perhaps if you don't have the answer, Runner might be able to offer a useful insight.

Glen,
The view that God is our creator and is at the foundation of all things, physical and spiritual, is not on the way out. That is only your wishful thinking.

When I was a lad, no one had ever heard of creationism as any kind of theory or argument. Yet today, opinion pages such as OLO are full of it. Atheists are looking over their shoulder a little concerned at its resurgence. This will only grow as science daily discovers more levels of complexity within the natural world, inexplicable to Darwin’s archaic 19th Century ideas.

We see the relevance of how ideas about human evolution over billions of years can affect ethics and behaviour. We insist to school children that they understand that our lives are the result of a chance chemical occurrence, arising from a gloomy pond, on a coagulated rock in a misplaced backwater of an otherwise cold an inhospitable void, before sending them to their next class to hear about self-esteem. If we tell them they are just a bunch of chemicals, on what basis do we tell them not to inject themselves with chemicals?

@Dan S de Merengue: We must be reading different authors. My strong impression is that the papers confirming Evolution by Natural Selection are swamping those from the declining few still trying to argue that evolution is a myth. Latterly, the ID proponents are even struggling with explaining how, if god is to be credited with designing the human being, he made such an appalling mess of the design brief.

I assume that you are an evolution denier because if you weren't, you would have accepted the need to answer my question about when humankind’s soul-less ancestors gave way to soul-equipped ones; and how god explained to the first child with a soul why he or she could aspire to an eternity in heaven but the parent couldn’t. If you are a denier, have you decided yet how to respond to the mainstream Christian churches which, I think, have now virtually all accepted that the theory of evolution is no longer deniable?

If you don’t like current theories about how life got started, just replace them with yours about how god got started. You wouldn’t, would you, try the line that god always was and always will be? That’s the one my Catechism tried on me when I was six and it didn’t even make sense then.

Richie10
Rather than preach to us, you might like to ponder the words of Isaac Asimov:
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly".

Ummm Dan,

You have been told several times before, take it on board.

Alternatively, Get over it. You are displaying the same disease as Runner, who is a deliberate parody of fundamentalism intended to make such even more ugly and intolerable than it is. Why are you so sucked in?

Even if you believe in a "god", it is apparant that such a "god" spent far more effort "faking" evolution than mere humans have spent writing so-called "scripture".

Evolution is important, and if it means "god" as interpreted by the shallow must take a back seat, so be it.

Other things have been important and the impotance of trad religion in dealing with these has meant that modernism has come to the fore.

Alternatively, think of all the fossils that haven't been faked, and the many more to come, compared to the ease of typing off a few more gospels. Hubbard saw the *easy* way.

Either evolution is true and we need to know, or "god" wants us to understand that evolution is true, and we need to know. Scripure be damned as the temporal fiction it is.

If it is *only* a total realignment of your world view to get this dan, I suggest you hurry, as the rest of us are not patient with such pathetic laziness. Catch up.

Principles: you are assuming Richie10 and other fundies actually read non-fiction. Not a good assumption.

Rusty

Glen, a few points of clarification:

Firstly, we probably are reading different authors.

I’d agree that most adhere to the theory of evolution as that is the standard view. What I was suggesting was that the number of Darwin doubting scientists was increasing rather than declining.

I’d agree that ID proponents do have trouble explaining some things. Who doesn’t? Any theory provokes problems which inspire further research.

By the way, I am surprised that you (or anyone) would call the design of the human body an ‘appalling mess’. I don’t think Leo de Vinci thought of it like that. Many of the design features we marvel at (e.g. the heart, which pumps gallons every hour for decades and rests in between beats), as well as some that we can only hope to imitate in our technology (e.g. the eye, with ultimate sensitivity down to one photon of light). Many of the functions, even major organs such as the brain, we cannot even explain, let alone suggest improvements. But if you can think of ways to improve this appalling mess, then please go ahead.

I often hear opinion about what the ‘mainstream church’ believes. Even defining the mainstream church might be a challenge. I spend quite a bit of my week hanging around people who consider themselves part of the ‘mainstream church’, and from my experience they’re fairly split on the issue of creation or Darwinian evolution. Some go one way, some the other, and some try to hold both in some kind of tension. For better or worse, church leaders have been slow to make hard and fast or prescriptive pronouncements.

Ummm Rusty,
What have I been told, several times before?

I do appreciate that we come at this issue from different viewpoints and view the evidence accordingly. (Fancy that, people having differing viewpoints on a website like this!)

The fossils are not fake. Most of them represent a body of evidence bringing testimony to the globe covering flood that destroyed all air breathing things at the time of Noah.

Dan S etc: << The fossils are not fake. Most of them represent a body of evidence bringing testimony to the globe covering flood that destroyed all air breathing things at the time of Noah. >>

That's just complete crap, Dan. That's what you've been told before, repeatedly.

The "lords prayer" is actually of Egyptian origin like most of the Christian religion, 10 commandments, taken from the Egyptian book of the dead, etc etc, it pre dates the invention of the Christian myths by thousands of years, just like the incantation "amen" the Christian cults force children to repeat after every prayer or "wish", plagiarised! Is this an example of what the religious cults don't want taught in ethics classes? Like the fact that the Noah,s ark myth was actually the result of a Tsunami created by the eruption of a volcano in the Aegean sea that burst the Bosporus straits flooded and created the black sea which had previously been a fresh water lake. All carbon dated and geologically tested and proved beyond any doubt in a doco by non other than Bob Ballard of Titanic fame.
Every doco I have ever seen shows all religion to be nothing more than myth, fraud and forgery and basically evil. Definitely not ethical, we should be showing children these doco,s instead of filling their heads with mythological nonsense!

@HFR Would you mind stating some primary evidence for your claims? For example the Lord's Prayer speaks about God as "Our Father" and asks for the coming of the (Davidic) kingdom. Where are such claims made in the Book of the Dead?? Or are you thinking about the (natural law based) 10 Commandments?

1. Myth is not always false. It can simply be a different way of conveying important truths about our identity.

2. That the documentaries you have seen pan religion says a lot about documentaries. One need only watch Frontline to wonder how informed we could really be from an episode of, say, 60 Minutes. The little I have seen from "The History Channel" makes me cringe.

@ Glen. What are your thoughts on metaphysics? Your Catechism for 6 Year Olds probably did not refer to God as the Ipsum Esse Subsistens but I think that is what the writers had in mind. The intuition is that God IS being. As creatures we participate in being. Time is co-terminous with created being.

CJ,
Do you know anything about fossils? If so, I would invite you to make an intelligent comment.

Actually Dan, the great majority of fossils do not represent "air breathers" Most of them are aquatic, such as ammonites, molluscs and fish.

Were the ammonites wiped out by the flood of Noah?

If so, why are they and the fish that lived around the same time buried under metres of sedimentary rock, well under the layers that contain the dinosurs. Shouldn't they have been swimming around and lay on top of the dinosaur layer or even within the dino layers?

Dan S etc: << Do you know anything about fossils? >>

Clearly I know a little bit more about them and the techniques by which they are dated than you do. Anybody who tries to use fossil evidence for the biblical flood is either ignorant or a fool, or both. Even besides Bugsy's example, there is much fossil evidence that predates the advent of humans by millions of years.

@ Gordo Pollo: The nuns certainly did not mention Ipsum Esse Subsistens to me, or anything else in Latin that I can recall. The brothers did later but I don’t recall that they used that particular phrase. Nor do I recall being told that:

“God is that being whose essence is identical to His existence. God's essence is to be. Hence, it follows that Ipsum Esse cannot not be. Ipsum Esse (God) is His own to be, and therefore exists necessarily.”

I suspect they never mentioned it because somebody in the class might have asked them to explain it and I don’t think they could have. I have to confess that whenever I’ve encountered something that I don’t understand, such as, “God is that being whose essence is identical to His existence”, I’ve found that putting it in Latin didn’t make it easier to understand though it did make it easier for me to explain why I couldn’t understand it.

I’m sure this will disappoint you but despite my having once (eons ago) got Ds in my Philosophy major, I could not then and still cannot understand what it means to say that essence is identical to existence. I’m category bound, I’m afraid. I’m so naïve as to think that things which are components of something (like essence) and states of being (such as conscious or elated) are, forever, categorically different things and to say that this component is identical to that state remains pure gobbledygook to me.

I know that many people find it just as hard to get their head around what there was before the big bang as it is to understand “God always was and always will be”, and I certainly don’t know what preceded the big bang. But I’m pretty sure that however it can be that God always was should work just as well for “what was there before the big bang too?”

Gordo Polo, Go to any Library and read, there is no evidence Historically or archaeological of any christian God or Jesus ever, outside of forged and fabricated religious cult text, it is all forgery and myth.I don't argue with religious cult members, it's futile, your mind is closed and immersed in a world of contrived primitive superstition and myth.
It is for you who makes ridiculous claims of belief in the supernatural to prove their existence. If the Jews who lived in the time of your imaginary Jew Jesus, refuse to acknowledge his existence why would anyone else?

@ Glen. Your description of God having to exist read something like the Ontological argument and I most certainly do not wish to place being in the same category as essences. Somthing's "existence" is a mere fact and is the least you can really say about it. For Aquinas being or "esse" is a different kettle of fish as it can be understood as an act and as a source of all the perfections we see. Heidegger was on to something similar to this when he spoke about the 'forgetfulness of being' - the innate tendence we have to think in essences and forget the act that grounds them (albeit Heidegger's ontology is as obscure as it gets).

@HFR you have me intrigued. Are you saying that if the Christian God existed we could expect to see archaelogical evidence of said God?? What would He look like so I know how to recognise Him? Perhaps He's in the fossil record swimming over the top of Dan's air-breathers? I think I would have more chance of seeing a yeti or the FSM.

Thank you Jesus,
We have certainly activated peoples imagination and proved that where there is life there is hope. Some have a bad picture of their father and see him as bad. Some know their father and know he is good. Are you in the proactive camp or do you react.
If God is big enough to create the word through His spoken word he is certainly big enough to defend it.
Been catching Barra in the Gulf for a few days with my family. A good break in the sun and the warmth. My children are a real blessing because I love them in thought and deed not only with empty words. Faith without works is dead. 65 years ago my grandmother taught me that the only thing you carry through life is your name and it is not your own but comes from your father and I am responsible for the name in my generation. All make mistakes and miss the mark but I would rather live under grace than under the law. I accept Gods forgiveness and help in my weekness for my earthly journey is still not over, thanks be to God my provider.

Bugsy, that’s not what I said. I said most of the fossils give testimony to the flood, not that most fossils are the remains of air breathing animals.

CJ, thanks for your considered words minus the profanities.

I don’t really desire to get into a full on creation / evolution debate, mostly because that was not essentially the topic of the article, even if Glen did mention the subject. His topic was to do with the teaching of ethics in preference to any type of religious education. But to establish his humanistic ethic, he must first undermine the Christian ethic, which means that he must challenge the Christian worldview and the authority of Scripture.

Glen appears to want to appeal to a more neutral kind of ethic, independent of religious teaching. However, I suspect he is not so neutral in his attempts to undermine Christian teaching, starting with Genesis.

In creationist thought, much of the geological strata with the fossils they contain do not represent time epochs but are rather the result of the action of currents of water within the tumult of the catastrophic flood.

Dan,

global flood? what?

You poor twit. get help.

Rusty

"In creationist thought, much of the geological strata with the fossils they contain do not represent time epochs but are rather the result of the action of currents of water within the tumult of the catastrophic flood".
Dan,
How does your mythical flood cope with the geology of the Sydney basis multiple coal seams? One seam has a band of volcanic dust about 1.5m thick before it was compressed over 280m years and the seam has another even greater layer of volcanic dust immediately above it. Another seam is immediately below a thick layer conglomerate in which are embedded water flow eroded stones. Surely if a flood had had any influence the layers would be in a logical (sedimentary determined) order. They are not.
Vegetation for one seam accumulated,a volcanic eruption deposited ash, more vegetation then accumulated follow by another eruption and so on. Your flood concept is bunk.

Dan,

<<Bugsy, that’s not what I said. I said most of the fossils give testimony to the flood, not that most fossils are the remains of air breathing animals.>>

So the majority of the creatures that died in the flood were water-breathing then?

How’s that? They drown, did they?

It’s like I’ve (repeatedly) said before though, floods - no matter how big - don’t lay down neat layers of sediment containing fossils that become more and more simple the deeper you go down, and date back further and further - in the order of millions of years - with multiple dating methods that work on different clocks and different principals.

Face it Dan, once again you’ve been thoroughly defeated. Time to walk off with your tail between your legs.

Foyle,
Thanks for your detailed question. You must have given some thought and consideration to how the evidences should appear if there was an enormous flood in ancient times.

As I said, I don’t intend here to get into a full debate on creation and evolution. It’s easily a big topic on its own. And I’m not really the one qualified to answer technical questions on the geological subtleties of the Sydney Basin. My first issue was to relate it back to Glen’s article on ethics, and to see why he felt to raise the issue of creation. Do the rocks in the Sydney basin relate to the issue of whether our new PM should give way to gay marriages? It’s about looking at the larger picture of whether the Christian view point is still relevant. If the story of the global flood can give some insight to coal deposits, then maybe we should take some notice about what Genesis says about the Christian concept of marriage.

“At the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Jesus said (quoting Genesis), 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one.”

I know it sounds like a long bow to string. But I see the reaction I get from atheists when we start talking about the real world of rocks and stone.

If there is no God, then Glen is correct and we need to base our ethics on a humanist logic and nothing else. If there is a God, and his word can be trusted, then our ethics should be based on these. It’s a matter of which worldview is correct. And the Christian worldview still holds some sway in our community.

I don’t have all the answers on Australian geology. But Tas Walker is not a bad place to start for a creationist point of view. Tas has worked with coal in the electricity industry, and this is his website: http://biblicalgeology.net/

“My first issue was to relate it back to Glen’s article on ethics, and to see why he felt to raise the issue of creation."
I was not aware that I'd raised the issue of creation except in a passing comment about how divided the various Christian churches are on the question of evolution. I'd agree that if there really were a god and if we knew how it wanted us to behave, then we would be smart to fall in line with its wishes, it being (presumably) much more powerful than us and likely to smite us if we annoyed it. That is, if it has the same kind of personality failings that we mere humans have. In the near certain absence of a god, I think we should just go with the “Do unto others” rule that served the ancient Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks and others so well for some many centuries that the chaps who managed to get their memoirs accepted into one or other of the collections that came to be known as the bible reprised it in such places as Matthew 7:12 (if I remember correctly). None of which stops certain people today from claiming that the rule was invented by Christ, which is a bit like crediting Gen X with the invention of sex.
Anyway, you wouldn’t want to place too much faith in what some religion insists is the word of god when the religions cannot even agree on whether intelligent design is intelligent or hog wash. All the major Christian churches, by the way, have moved or are inexorably moving, to the latter view. In this circumstance, it seems particularly short sighted of people to waste the one life they‘ll get trying to observe an ethic which is nothing more than some innocents’ wildly optimistic guesses about how their imaginary friend in the sky wants us to behave.
BTW, anyone who disputes the suggestion that if we had been created by a god, he/she/it must have been a lousy designer need only Google “human design flaws”.

Dear GlenC,
Try John 1-1,2,3,&14 instead of Mat 7-12 for it says Jesus created sex. The law or 10 commandments came through Moses. Ex-20. Grace and truth came through Jesus, John 1-17. If you break the law you are subject to the law. I personally prefer grace and truth because under it we have forgiveness and salvation. The law demands justice but under the new covenant we have mercy and grace for God paid the price on the cross Jn 3-16. It is finished Jn 17-4.5. Jn 19-30. And Jesus is now glorified Jn 12-22 to 32. If evolution was fact there should be an abundance of transitional fossil records available as we evolved from one phase to the next in our development and I am led to believe that all fossil records do not have transitional representation in the available evidence and to believe otherwise requires Great faith in the theory or belief of evolution.

Richie 10

A little advice.

Try presenting an argument using your own thoughts arranged in a logical fashion. No one, other than very religious people are remotely interested in your biblical references or sermonising.

All you are currently achieving is a very good argument as to why religious education should be banned from schools as it clearly stultifies original thought, reason and analysis as appears to have happened to you.

The point dan, is that absolutely no professional geologists, nor accredited university geology departments will give you anything other than a long laugh if you try to talk seriously about "flood geology".

All you establish by mentioning it is your desperate need to get out of the creationist isolation chamber and get an education. Till then, your views on "flood geology" are a clear touchstone as to the shallow and cockamamie nature of your "faith".

You believe anything "pastor" tells you, don't you?

You are in with the runners of this world, enjoy irrelevance.

Get that help.

Rusty

No, Rusty. You've mssed the point.

But you've claimed I need an education. Tell us about your academic qualifications and we'll all see if they compare favourably to mine.

Here's your chance.

Do they teach geology in the Maths Department of Universities? Perhaps they teach "Flood Geology" in the Philosophy Dept., they sure as hell don't teach it in the Science Faculty, for good reason.

Maybe this will help. smile.

http://ldolphin.org/cisflood.html

http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

I say, you teach your child and I'll teach mine.

How fair do you want it.

One is where I stand, and all that I see before me, must be the truth ?

Religious education. I thought we had places already designed for this?

Why do you want our children?

And please answer the question.

TTM

Creation certainly is a leap of faith until you hear the likes of Rusty grab for draws in trying to justify the evolution fantasy. Very amusing. Your patience towards those pushing their dogmas is amazing Dan.

And of factual commonsense> Did you notice in the first link at the bottom of the page, please send 25 dollars. and for what! I'd love to know.
You religious people are free to pray on your own kind, and some have said, we will breed you out! Thats real smart logic when you know this planet wont take it.

This just shows how dangerous these cults are.

You people be the Judges.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

TTM

FACTS ON NOAH'S ARK

Much is learned about the nature of the narrative about God from this story.
(1) It shows He is a holy God and cannot tolerate sin.
(2) It shows He is a God of unholy construction of floating hotels
(3) It shows He is a God of mercy in that He spares some
(5) It shows He is keen to concentrate genes in the gene pool.
(6) It shows He may have mistaken gene dilution for "in-solution" dilution
(9) It shows He is able to provide food for many for a long time

Honestly, this is like debating whether Humpty Dumpty actually sat on a wall. Ancient texts need to be treated with hermeneutical sensitivity if you want to know what the author was trying to say. Whatever the written and oral records compiled into Genesis are intending to say - giving a scientific account is not one of them. Compare the order of events in Gen 1 with Gen 2 for starters. I have no idea what you want to say about Gilgamesh, etc but please keep in mind that atheist and Christian are equally committing intellectual suicide if they ignore the scholarship and set about fundamentalist interpretations.

If only it was just like Humpty Dumpty, Gordo.

Unfortunately, it is only the Humptians that do not pretend their hero is God incarnate and from that basis want to lay claim to the foundation of the moral code and laws that govern everyone in this country.

The only thing I see Humptians doing is eating omelettes on Sunday.

We have places for religious education; they are called churches, mosques, temples, ashrams, synagogues and so on.

We have places for the teaching of skills and understanding the natural world; they are called schools

Well, dan,

I have higher degrees in biology from UQ and Griffith. I have extensive experience in genetic analysis of cancer genetics, and I took an extra year of undergrad to look at both of these as well. Paleobiology was a sideline. As was evolutionary biology.

I suspect that like runner, you only know about these subjects from pamphlets distributed by pastor. What's *his qualification? six months of "bible" college"?

You should use pastor's pamphlets in the toilet, and flush them as deserved. Then you should go to pastor and inform him that *any* misinformation he distributes about biology may get him in the face one day (doesn't "god" hate liars?). I know you have low standards, therefore you don't care if he lies to you. I do. You vote and if you think flood geology has a basis not risible, your vote is probably wasted on you.

Next ime you anything to say about the fossil record, you better have one of my former professors to back you up. I suspect you won't. Not at *any* price.

What you *will* have is a couple of dropouts who can't get a job anywhere else, but who will do it for just about any price, down to a beer. Same dropouts runner depends upon to find out-of-context quotes for him.

Now Danny boy, catch up.

Rusty

I look at religion in this sence. ( and all pay attention ) Think about this! if you fall, take drugs, drop-out of school, hit the skids, loss of family, need a hand, when death calls, lost or frighten, no-one cares, a safety net for fallen smart-ares, criminal readjustment, the lonely, the old, those that the community forgets, the old man/drunk in the streets, the beaten and down, help with food and bills, a shoulder to lean on, or just some one who will just give a fu@k, when the rest of the world just walks right over you, and so on, and so on, and so on. This is what I understood what religion was for and more to some, that I didn't think I was hurting.

All you young just think it wont happen to you! Life is hard my friends and you can fall.

So dont be too hard on them, cause one day, you just might need them.

I know their a funny lot, but in their hearts they mean very well, trust me.
I believe everything works in complete balance and harmony and there is a top and a bottom, and some people, yes! even you can be floored without warning. I see religion as a safety net and that's the place I wish to always to see them, just in case life just doesnt work out as you planed it.

You know the saying!

Sh@T happens.

The world as one.

TTM

It is a fair and wonderful sentiment TTM you raise here.

Christians of differing faiths have assisted me at various times during my life along with those of no faith.

Having stated the above, I find it difficult tolerating certain religious fanatics or Christians who judge and persecute other people for not living the way they do or interpret the way in which they believe their God has prophesised, is the way in which others should follow. ie that we should all be doing the same. Different horses for different courses thank goodness.

For example, within the family I was raised, my christianity and how it was interpreted, was quite different from my siblings and parents.

My parents stance remained neutral in relation to their children attending mass/church; it was entirely up to my siblings and self. My brother chose not to attend Mass [parents were fine with this], my other two sisters did not attend Mass as teenagers; whereas I chose to attend on my own and through into adult life. I ceased attending many years ago however have retained my Christian faith and expanded it "in my own view, for myself".

I keep this to myself and do not impart my beliefs upon my children. I pray for my kids; however allow them to find their own way regarding faith. Both are against indoctrination at any rate.

Despite light hearted? comments regarding my christianity on OLO, I would never judge another person for following their own path and journey or think critically of those people; every person is equal to myself; Atheist Christian, Buddhist, Monk, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, whatever people follow, as long as those people are not abusing or physically hurting others through their beliefs and religion.

I have never termed myself a religious person as in all honesty, the Church, I discovered at a young age, had its fair share of narrowminded people who behaved in a nasty hypocritical manner; some Priests included most sadly. However, there were many lovely broadminded non-judgemental people who were givers in the community yet not indoctrinating.

""I see religion as a safety net
"The world as one."
think than move, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:42:11 PM

I see resilience, knowledge and balance as safety nets. The world will never be "as one" with religion.

Rusty,
Our pastor is a lady. She did a university degree before studying at Bible college. I don’t know why you think you can jump to the conclusions that you do. I’ve never seen her distribute pamphlets.

While you certainly have achieved an education, the manner in which you accuse others of lying only because they disagree with you is behaviour befitting the unlearned.

I’ve never claimed to be an expert on anything. In my posts I have given a basic outline to what is an alternate to the majority view. My major at university was in philosophy, a domain in which they specialise in weighing and formulating arguments, and opening the mind to alternate views. One of the first things they teach about assessing arguments is that the majority opinion is not always right (although democratic processes must hold sway in issues of governance, as per your reference to voting).

If you are unable to cope when others disagree with you, then I think you have much to learn. I don’t think professional geologists would laugh at the views of others, as you suggest. Deriding others is not a particularly useful adjunct to the scientific method.

I consider that I’ve had a fairly broad education. I followed up my degree with two graduate diplomas for the two fields in which I have worked (linguistics and education).

While I can’t write much (and haven’t) about geology, the basic ideas are not hard to follow. You cannot say no professional geologist takes that particular view, as I’ve already referenced one that does. He’s earned his stripes. Ultimately you will have to learn to deal with those who take an opposing view to yours other than only trying to malign them.

Severin,
You said religious education belongs in one place, while the teaching of skills and understanding the natural world belong in another. Glen was talking about teaching ethics (the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment; moral philosophy). In what category, or which side of the line, does that fall?

yes, yes, so dreadfully nasty,

That aside, got any *reason*, beyond flogging the product, why you might happen to regard "flood geology" highly?

Your philosophy course no doubt *also* taught you to go look up more than just one reference pro your own view, and to properly canvas the objections.

So, since you are therefore *aware* that "flood geology" is long debunked, despite endless reopening of the issue, why is tossing it in as if a fact *not* in fact lying? Misinformation is still misinformation, even if you did your darnedest to not know better.

If a "flood geologist" told me the sky was blue, I'd go check one more time. I suggest that you so examine any "fact" offerred to you by fundy literature or speakers.

Of course, if you *like* letting your religion be conflated with the most contemptible of fundamentalist lunacy then do, pray, continue to make this easy.

Rusty

Real.

I know the nut jobs your on about, and fast lead is the only cure for the likes of bin larden and any-other fruit loop who wishes to die for there god.
I mean, to kill or hurt any-thing for the god of your choice is not exactly balanced is it. Its like the son of SAM murderer. HIS DOG/GOD TOLD HIM TO DO IT... AND I still believe religion is not healthy for the mind.

I see resilience, knowledge and balance as safety nets. The world will never be "as one" with religion.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 10:20:58 AM

As for the world as one........its more meant as a target for the human species, but your probably right, humans will just never learn.

The cave-man human knows nothing but to kill his own kind, Iam just hoping the next stage of evolution kicks in soon. smile.

TTM>